[Gllug] DHCP & DNS

[Xander D Harkness]

> 
> Doesn't that concern many people? Especially when we are being told
> that the Health Service must move towards a modern electronic
> infrastructure, with online access to electronic patient records?
> And the day before the head of Microsoft visits the UK?
> 
It does not concern me because as with all the other attempts at
technology within Government it will probably fail.  The previous
computer system for the NHS was never implemented and cost millions.

Theregister.co.uk has another:

http://theregister.co.uk/content/53/23228.html

Govt watchdog slams £1 billion IT failureBy Kieren McCarthyPosted:
06/12/2001 at 12:14 GMT
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has today published its report into
the government's failed payment card scheme - which saw £1 billion of
taxpayers' money wasted - and pulls no punches.

The project, which aimed to replace a paper-based system for benefits
claims with a magnetic strip card, "must rank as one of the biggest IT
failures in the public sector", the PAC concluded. It was the "latest
and the worst in a long line of public sector IT debacles". And "in view
of the Department's [of Works and Pensions] track record on IT, we
remain sceptical about its ability to deliver [in future]".

The scheme, started in May 1996 under a Tory administration, was one of
the first government projects to be run as a private finance initiative
(PFI), in which commerical companies took on some of the risk while
delivering a public system. It was in trouble from the start thanks to
the complexity of the task, run alongside a modernisation of the Post
Office. Over 17 million people were expected to make use of the cards.

Three years later, in May 1999, the (now Labour) government decided to
drop the magnetic card scheme at the estimated cost of £1 billion in the
write down of assets and delayed reductions in benefits fraud as it was
seen to be holding back the essential automation of the Post Office.

While the PAC had already written a report into the collapsed project in
January 2000 (published May 2000), it undertook a second report to
examine the lessons that could be learnt as the government now looks at
different methods for paying benefits.

The report makes three broad conclusions:



Similar projects need to be very carefully examined for the possible
risks. In this case, the government had "underestimated the difficulty
of attempting to tackle a huge and complex project". There were also
"basic project management failures".
That the measures introduced in February this year in response to around
25 government IT failures "should go a long way preventing similar
failures in future". Now, all new IT projects have to be run through a
procurement watchdog - an offshoot of the Treasury called the Office of
Government Commerce.
That management should face up to the possibility of failure and "take
prompt decisions to avoid abortive costs". It criticises the government
for taking 18 months to decide to end the project.

More specifically, the PAC slammed the government's "inadequate
contracting and project management skills"; questioned the logic behind
choosing Pathway as the contractor because it was the company willing to
take on the most risk when it has come third in nearly all technical
criteria; asked why the various parties did not share information on
occuring problems; and strongly suggested that one person be responsible
for each project - it reports that the "conflicting objectives" of the
Dept of Works and Pensions, DTI, Treasury and Post Office caused
unnecessary delays and extra costs.

With regard to new plans to create a similar banking service for
benefits claims, the PAC remains positive: "In principle, the
arrangements... should provide a more modern, efficient and secure
method of paying benefits and deliver significant administrative and
fraud savings." However, the PAC makes it clear that it expects to be
fully consulted so the department can "secure accountability before the
arrangements are finalised".

The Secretary of State for Works and Pensions, Alisdair Darling, was
called on to explain his department's actions. Darling said he agreed
with "a substantial part" of the PAC's conclusions but predictably
concentrated on pointing out that the project was started by a
Conservative government and criticised PAC chairman Edward Leith for not
pointing this out.

So the approach to future IT projects may change, but politicians never
shall. ®


> 
> -- 
> Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
> http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug



-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug